“The truth is, that, even with the most secure tenure of office, during good behavior, the danger is not, that the judges will be too firm in resisting public opinion, and in defence of private rights or public liberties; but, that they will be ready to yield themselves to the passions, and politics, and prejudices of the day.”

There is nothing – nothing – in the Constitution of the United States that prohibits religion being recognized, practiced, condoned or even promoted (in general terms) by the Federal government. You can search the document all you want and you will not find the words anywhere in the text. In order to come up with the supposed “wall of separation,” you have to invent things that are not there – and even then, you have to turn them on their head. In this case, the phrase “wall of separation” comes from a letter Jefferson wrote to a church that means the exact opposite of what the anti-Christians claim it means. Jefferson was not telling the church that the federal government was intended to be secular; he was telling the church that the federal government had no authority regarding matters of religion – period!

I no longer entertain the arguments of those who claim this nation was founded by men who did not fear God, or that they designed our government to be secular. The men who framed this nation and our government said otherwise: they, by their own hands, convict the secular humanists who now push their revisionist history in their crusade against religion. In fact, the people claiming there is a wall of separation are of the exact spirit the founders sought to protect the nation against when they wrote the 1st Amendment. But the rise of Progressivism in this nation changed the sentiments among that minority which seeks to control others, and the courts have been chief among these conspirators. That is the threat Story was warning us against: that the courts would reject their true duty and follow the sentiments of their times. Well, history has shown that this sage should now be considered legal prophet. Story was foretelling the rise of the ‘living document:’ the false idea that the Constitution changes according to the feelings and needs of the times. And he was right: this has made the courts the primary source of our national and social destruction.

I can quote the founders all day long, but the forces that wage war against the Judea/Christian ethic are beyond reason. History and fact matter little to them. To them, history is a mere thing to be re-written as the need arises. This is why the Progressives will spend more than a year telling you that “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor.” When the truth is revealed and you discover they knew they were lying, they change the story and tell you they never said that, what they said was you could keep your doctor “if you were willing to pay more.” The fact that we live in an age of video tape does not bother these people: they have embraced Hitler’s belief that you can make people believe anything – so long as you just keep telling the lie. If you have not done so recently, read George Orwell’s 1984 and see if you do not already live in a form of that very world he described.

But for those who are reading who can still be reached by reason, I ask you to consider something for me, please. If this nation were founded by secular men, and they intended for our government to be secular, do you think the first Supreme Court Chief Justice – and founding father of this nation – would have said these words?

“Providence has given our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

–John Jay

Now, to those who insist on pushing the lies:

1 – John Jay was one of the founding fathers of this nation; he was there; he helped build this country and its government. He knows the founders, this nation and the Constitution better than you or I ever will.

2 – Jay was the first Supreme Court Chief Justice. This makes him a legal authority on the Constitution. He is more authoritative than any alive today.

3 – He said this was a Christian nation at the time of the founding. It was considered to be Christian – even by the Supreme Court – until the Progressives started to infiltrate the courts, reversed rulings, and started to deny and re-write history.

4 – Jay said that, as a Christian nation, it was the DUTY and in the best interest of the people to elect CHRISTIAN leaders!

In a world where logic and reason reign, this is a slam-dunk, iron-tight refutation of the claim that this nation was not Christian at its founding and that our government was intended to be secular. These things have been forced upon us by a minority and in direct violation of the 1st Amendment. That makes these people enemies of the State, as they have violated the Social Contract that is the Constitution. By not going through the legal process of Amending the Constitution to make this a secular nation (because they knew they couldn’t and still couldn’t), these people have placed themselves in a state of war against those who still seek to abide by the Constitution. Consequently, they no longer deserve nor can they legally claim any rights or protections under it. And here is the irony of ironies: the protections they seek – even the right to be free of religion – only exist because of the Judea/Christian ethic they now seek to destroy!

I’m at a point where if you are not willing to listen to truth then I move on. I hate to leave a child of God wallowing in their ignorance, but it has to be.
I do not believe that anyone that reads our founders could think anything other than what you say here.
If you do not get it or at least willing to listen then you are evil or willfully ignorant.

I am confused, so I am asking for clarification — please. Do you think I am the one “wallowing in ignorance,” or do you believe that I am merely trying to give voice to the founders’ words here? I hope you will answer because it matters — at least, it matters to me.

Separation of church and state is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the first place, the Supreme Court has thoughtfully, authoritatively, and repeatedly decided as much; it is long since established law. In the second place, the Court is right. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of “We the people” (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day (by which governments generally were grounded in some appeal to god(s)), the founders’ avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which affirmatively constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions. The basic principle, thus, rests on much more than just the First Amendment.

That the words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who mistakenly supposed they were there and, upon learning of their error, fancy they’ve solved a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphorical phrase commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.

To the extent that some nonetheless would like confirmation–in those very words–of the founders’ intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. Some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that were the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Rather, the Court discussed the historical context in which the Constitution and First Amendment were drafted, noting the expressed understanding of Madison perhaps even more than Jefferson, and only after concluding its analysis and stating its conclusion did the Court refer–once–to Jefferson’s letter, largely to borrow his famous metaphor as a clever label or summary of its conclusion. The notion, often heard, that the Court rested its decision solely or largely on that letter is a red herring.

Madison, who had a central role in drafting the Constitution and the First Amendment, confirmed that he understood them to “[s]trongly guard[] . . . the separation between Religion and Government.” Madison, Detached Memoranda (~1820). Indeed, he understood the original Constitution–without the First Amendment–to separate religion and government. He made plain, too, that they guarded against more than just laws creating state sponsored churches or imposing a state religion. Mindful that even as new principles are proclaimed, old habits die hard and citizens and politicians could tend to entangle government and religion (e.g., “the appointment of chaplains to the two houses of Congress” and “for the army and navy” and “[r]eligious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings and fasts”), he considered the question whether these actions were “consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom” and responded: “In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.”

While the religious views of various founders are subjects of some uncertainty and controversy, it is safe to say that many founders were Christian of one sort or another and that you could quote some all day long expressing views such as you note regarding religion. In assessing the nature of our government, though, care should be taken to distinguish between society and government and not to make too much of various founders’ individual religious beliefs. Their individual beliefs, while informative, are largely beside the point. Whatever their religions, they drafted a Constitution that establishes a secular government and separates it from religion as noted earlier. This is entirely consistent with the fact that some founders professed their religiosity and even their desire that Christianity remain the dominant religious influence in American society. Why? Because religious people who would like to see their religion flourish in society may well believe that separating religion and government will serve that end and, thus, in founding a government they may well intend to keep it separate from religion. It is entirely possible for thoroughly religious folk to found a secular government and keep it separate from religion. That, indeed, is just what the founders did.

Lest there be any doubt on this score, note that shortly after the founding, President John Adams (a founder) signed, with the unanimous consent of the Senate (comprised in large measure of founders), the Treaty of Tripoli declaring, in pertinent part, “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” No need to resort to reading tea leaves to understand that. This is not an informal comment by an individual founder, but rather an official declaration of the most solemn sort by the United States government itself.

As for your embrace of Justice Story’s comment, I gather the irony is lost on you. Christians have been and remain by far the vast majority of the electorate of our nation, and Christianity has been and remains by far the most influential religion in our society. It is there that you should look for the passions, and politics, and prejudices of the day, led by the likes of you, to which judges, as Story warned, may be too ready to yield.

Oh, and as for this constant reliance on the Treaty of Tripoli: it is YOU on whom the lesson is lost. We were trying to appease MUSLIMS, so we tried to convince them we were not founded on the Christian faith — to get them to stop attacking us. Sound familiar? It should, we are trying to appease them still — and with the same result.

I notice you leave out Jefferson’s report while acting as ambassador to Tripoli under Adams. He said there was no appeasing the Muslims, they mean to kill us because we are Christian (paraphrased, but accurate).

Doug, it is not I who twist history. I simply read it — in its entirety and in context — and accept what the men who made it tell me. YOU and those who seek to exert their will on others are the ones who re-write history, and you do so because you cannot achieve that will in the full light of the truth. You have to work in the shadow of lie and deception.

You say we were trying to appease them. Okay. No one has said that the U.S. made that statement gratuitously. Of course the U.S. had some reason for making that representation in the treaty; you may well have put your finger on it. So what? Are you also suggesting that the U.S. lied in saying this? If so, what is your evidence? Note that the treaty was approved unanimously by the Senate. It was also published in newspapers along with President Adam’s signing statement that he approved of each and every provision of the treaty. Not a word of dissent or doubt was recorded.

My proof? Context, context, CONTEXT! Something you apparently are missing. When the founders said we were not a “Christian” nation to the Muslims, they were telling them we are not a theocracy. Islam is. SO you have made an assumption of equivocation the founders did not make. They knew who they were speaking to, you have conveniently “missed” this.

Still, the assertion that were are not a theocracy is correct. I have NEVER made that claim. But had you been alive to ask the founders whether they had intended God to be kicked out of all aspects of govt. and public life, they may well have jailed you. Yes, they jailed people for heresy back then, which is yet another stroke against your assertion that the founders intended a ‘secular’ govt.

I’m well aware of the context–aware enough to recognize that your invocation of it is a bit off.

The U.S. government sought to distinguish itself not from the Islamic states, but rather from the European states that the Muslims considered to be Christian and, at least partly for that reason, attacked. The European states were not theocracies, but rather were civil governments with state religions or some other relationship with religion, e.g., monarchies held by the grace of God.

In order to remove any such reason for the Muslims to attack the United States, it assured them in this treaty that the U.S. government is not “in any sense” founded on the Christian religion.

Doug, Through ALL of our exchanges, I have noticed that you always defer to RECENT court rulings. For some reason, you ignore the rulings prior to the rise of Progressivism and you TOTALLY ignore the words of the founders. In BOTH cases, they represent the ultimate authority. Neither you nor I know more about what they intended than they did. They did it! And they — THE FOUNDERS — say you are wrong!!!

I’ll rest with that all day long, thank you. It is sort of like siding with the Ultimate Authority of the Sanhedrin and Pharisees 🙂

Hmm, when context provides you an answer not to your liking, you just ignore the whole thing? Throw your hands up in the air and take comfort in the thought that neither you nor I really know what they intended? Kinda hard to even discuss or consider history then. Then, nonetheless, I see you seem ready to suppose that you know full well what individual founders intended in sundry other statements–statements, it seems, that you also suppose trump a treaty. Hmm, as it turns out, you may be right in one respect: Some things I just don’t get.

You have a treaty — 1 treaty that was trying to appease Islamic terrorists — and you base an entire history on THAT ONE PIECE OF TAINTED HISTORY! And then you tell me I am the one cherry picking?

To those who are reading along:

Doug and I have a history going back several years. He is fully aware that I have linked and linked and cited and cited the evidence against his position — many times. He is depending on you not to know this so you will think he has a point when he makes a reference to me not repeating all these links and citations in every post I write. This is not only fallacious on his part, it is intellectually dishonest.

Doug asks how we can know what the founders believed. Well, they spoke between themselves about their awareness that they were also writing to history — meaning us. So they wrote what they meant and were as clear as they could be about what they were trying to do. So, if they said this, and then wrote in detail, and I am wrong about what I think they were trying to tell us, why do people like Doug have to dig and then twist the scraps they find to support their position? If the founders wanted a secular government, where are the clear statements to that effect? And why are there so many assertions from the founders saying exactly the opposite? That freedom is directly connected to faith in God?

You will have to decide for yourself, but I beg you to be very careful when accepting the fallacious arguments presented by people such as Doug. He has precious little to support his argument, and what he has had to be twisted out of original meaning and intent — like Jefferson’s reference to “separation of Church and State.” Jefferson was actually saying the State had NO power to do what it has been doing since those like Doug seized control of our courts — to kick God out of our public life. Otherwise, why would Jefferson establish a Christian church that worshiped in the Capital building every Sunday?

You see, history — what actually happened, not the re-written accounting of it — history is against Doug. I am merely trying to stand with history. Thus, I am not asserting my opinion, but the truth. But you need to decide for yourself. Just look into the real history. It is there. Go to the founders’ own words and NOT ‘history books’ and you will find the same truth I discovered. I am positive of that.

Your comments are wanted and welcome, but are moderated before posting Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (Address never made public)

Name

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
Change )